How to convert

[jmcrae]

It’s too bad that there is no provision for someone not having been raised by these same rules.

We also have no “provision” for the second, third, and fourth wives of Islamic converts, nor for the many wives and concubines of Hindu converts, nor for other situations where there have been multiple marriages.

I’m sorry about your situation, but I really can’t imagine the Church changing its laws on marriage to suit the various situations that new converts find themselves in.

 

[novatrix]

We also have no “provision” for the second, third, and fourth wives of Islamic converts, nor for the many wives and concubines of Hindu converts, nor for other situations where there have been multiple marriages.

I’m sorry about your situation, but I really can’t imagine the Church changing its laws on marriage to suit the various situations that new converts find themselves in.

Actually, the laws do address the situation, but those avenues are currently closed to me. Interesting your mention of Islamic and Hindu converts; from what I have learned here at the Answer Forum, if I were the Islamic or Hindu second or later wife of an Islamic or Hindu who has converted to Catholicism, I would be in a far easier situation! If an Islamic husband, for example, converted to Catholicism, he would undoubtedly no longer be living with more than just the first wife. I don’t believe any of the subsequent marriages would be considered valid (I’m guessing that, as Islamics and Hindus, none of the involved were baptized with water and the Trinity), the second and subsequent wives would not have a marriage to nullify, would be single, and therefore, have no impediment. That is if I’m understanding correctly.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, the laws do address the situation, but those avenues are currently closed to me. Interesting your mention of Islamic and Hindu converts; from what I have learned here at the Answer Forum, if I were the Islamic or Hindu second or later wife of an Islamic or Hindu who has converted to Catholicism, I would be in a far easier situation! If an Islamic husband, for example, converted to Catholicism, he would undoubtedly no longer be living with more than just the first wife.

What if he were not? What if he were emotionally attached to all of his wives, or what if they had no place to go?

I don’t believe any of the subsequent marriages would be considered valid (I’m guessing that, as Islamics and Hindus, none of the involved were baptized with water and the Trinity), the second and subsequent wives would not have a marriage to nullify, would be single, and therefore, have no impediment. That is if I’m understanding correctly.

Yes, that’s right. The problem comes when they want to continue with their present living arrangements - which is the part that isn’t possible while at the same time attempting to live the Catholic life.

You are in exactly the same position as would be the second wife of a Muslim, who wants to convert to Catholicism without leaving her home and family. You can understand how the Church, in her case, would require her to leave her family and take up the single life before attempting to become a Catholic. Now, your case is a bit easier, actually, than hers, because wife #1 is out of the picture, and if it can be proved that no valid marriage existed between your husband and wife #1, then you move into the position of wife #1 - this is a possibility that would not be open to our hypothetical Muslim friend.

 

[DebChris]

It’s too bad that there is no provision for someone not having been raised by these same rules. I have only in the past few years become familiar with the workings of the Catholic church. Having baptized my son in the Catholic church surely states an intention to honor that faith. My husband has said he will not participate in an annulment unless his first wife initiates it. I do not know how the Marriage Tribunal would view my first marriage; my first husband’s baptism is difficult to ascertain. His family shuns the established church, and is in particular extremely anti-Catholic. I believe he was baptized, by those who called themselves “elders” in their own established religion. When we married, it was at city hall, by an ordained minister, but who had told my mother after his pre-marriage counseling that he did not feel we should marry. I discovered after my marriage that my new husband did not want children. We did end up adopting after many years (at my insistence), and then in our marriage counseling before our divorce, the pastor who was counseling him told him he had “enabled” me by allowing us to adopt children. I have doubts that he would even participate in an annullment proceeding, due to his feelings towards the Catholic faith. If he did, it would only be to use untruths to try to hurt me. He believes that he can do anything he wishes, including lie, because God made him the ultimate authority over me at marriage, and anything he does “in the name of God” is justified.

Thus, I am in a sense “held hostage” by other people, unable to reconcile my situation and be received into the Catholic faith.

A husband’s unwillingness to initiate annullment proceedings could indicate his belief in the validity of his first marriage. This puts you in the unenviable position of a mistress (“made to commit adultery”). The O.T. story of Ezra called for the Jews to divorce their foreign wives, a very difficult decision for those affected. You still need to make a decision regarding your own first “marriage.”

 

[quiet52]

from jmcrae:

Originally Posted by DebChris
It has always been my understanding that anybody can inquire about the Catholic Faith.

Yes, but they cannot proceed past the Period of Inquiry until it is certain that they can become Catholic. (This is one reason why there needs to be a separate meeting for Inquirers, so that they can stay in Inquiry while the rest of their group proceeds on to the Period of Catechesis.)

Practically speaking, many parishes don’t have adequate resources (volunteers and available priests) to completely separate inquirers from catechumens and catechumens. Also, I’ve met many non-Catholic spouses who are trying to raise their baptized children in the Catholic faith – pastorally speaking, allowing them to participate in catechesis with catechumens and candidates can be of great benefit to them and their children, allowing them to gain more knowledge about the Church’s teachings and practices. True, sometimes their petitions for nullity are not granted, and the parents may never be able to receive the Eucharist unless and until they live as brother and sister. But if the children have been baptized in the Catholic faith, RCIA (without participation in the rites) can be a tremendous gift.

 

[jmcrae]

Practically speaking, many parishes don’t have adequate resources (volunteers and available priests) to completely separate inquirers from catechumens and catechumens. Also, I’ve met many non-Catholic spouses who are trying to raise their baptized children in the Catholic faith – pastorally speaking, allowing them to participate in catechesis with catechumens and candidates can be of great benefit to them and their children, allowing them to gain more knowledge about the Church’s teachings and practices. True, sometimes their petitions for nullity are not granted, and the parents may never be able to receive the Eucharist unless and until they live as brother and sister. But if the children have been baptized in the Catholic faith, RCIA (without participation in the rites) can be a tremendous gift.

They could “audit” the classes, certainly - as can anyone. But they would not be able to undergo the Rite of Acceptance or the Rite of Welcome until they could answer in the affirmative that they are prepared to begin to live the Catholic life, which includes being either single and not living with anyone, or validly married (their Baptism causes the marriage to become Sacramental at the moment that it occurs).

Once these things are looked after, then they can proceed to the Rite of Welcome or Rite of Acceptance and enter officially into the Period of Catechesis, with all that it entails.

 

[quiet52]

It’s too bad that there is no provision for someone not having been raised by these same rules. I have only in the past few years become familiar with the workings of the Catholic church. Having baptized my son in the Catholic church surely states an intention to honor that faith. My husband has said he will not participate in an annulment unless his first wife initiates it. I do not know how the Marriage Tribunal would view my first marriage; my first husband’s baptism is difficult to ascertain. His family shuns the established church, and is in particular extremely anti-Catholic. I believe he was baptized, by those who called themselves “elders” in their own established religion. When we married, it was at city hall, by an ordained minister, but who had told my mother after his pre-marriage counseling that he did not feel we should marry. I discovered after my marriage that my new husband did not want children. We did end up adopting after many years (at my insistence), and then in our marriage counseling before our divorce, the pastor who was counseling him told him he had “enabled” me by allowing us to adopt children. I have doubts that he would even participate in an annullment proceeding, due to his feelings towards the Catholic faith. If he did, it would only be to use untruths to try to hurt me. He believes that he can do anything he wishes, including lie, because God made him the ultimate authority over me at marriage, and anything he does “in the name of God” is justified.

Thus, I am in a sense “held hostage” by other people, unable to reconcile my situation and be received into the Catholic faith.

As for your first marriage, you have a right to petition for nullity, whether your ex-husband wants to or not. The annulment process does not involve a “trial” which pits one party against the other.

First you would meet with your pastor, or other advocate in your parish, fill out the forms for petition for nullity, and provide the following documents:

• Baptism certificate
• Marriage certificate
• Divorce decree

Then, the Tribunal office (not you) would notify your first husband(you must supply the address). He doesn’t need to agree to the process or participate in it for a declaration of nullity to be considered or granted by the Tribunal. You would have to provide some evidence by witnesses, and it seems you have three – you mentioned the two ministers, and your mother. If your ex-husband does participate, he and you will never face each other during the process.

As to your current husband’s reluctance to pursue an annulment, that is problematic, because unless and until the Church declares his first marriage an invalid one, you aren’t free to be married to him, and cannot receive the sacraments, even if your first marriage is found to have been invalid. Have you explained to him why this is important to you?

Please encourage your now-husband to come with you, to meet with the pastor of your nearest Catholic parish. Perhaps the pastor can provide some much-needed perspective for your husband, or help him remove obstacles to his reluctance.

 

[novatrix]

Also, I’ve met many non-Catholic spouses who are trying to raise their baptized children in the Catholic faith – pastorally speaking, allowing them to participate in catechesis with catechumens and candidates can be of great benefit to them and their children, allowing them to gain more knowledge about the Church’s teachings and practices. True, sometimes their petitions for nullity are not granted, and the parents may never be able to receive the Eucharist unless and until they live as brother and sister. But if the children have been baptized in the Catholic faith, RCIA (without participation in the rites) can be a tremendous gift.

Thank you! This is a very helpful thought. I have been studying books on Catholicism, and am trying to understand what is happening when I am at church. Being able to listen in at an RCIA class, and perhaps talk with/ask questions of someone involved in the process would help me in my understanding.

I hope people can grant me some grace in my motivations. In my first marriage, the family I was married into believed that the Catholic church is evil. Even though I didn’t agree with many of their teachings, still, when in a situation like the one I was in, many times untruths are so accepted and emphasized that one can lose their own rationalizing ability…it is a form of brainwashing. Now that I am out of that situation, and able to think on my own, I am having to open my heart and mind and try to undo the brainwashing. My child is important to me, and I want to be knowledgeable and supportive in his spiritual growth. My spirituality is a growing thing as well, and I feel I have been misled and misinformed for many years.

As for my current husband, it is very complex; he has been questioning his Catholic faith for quite some time. His first wife is unstable. I think, combined with his doubts about his faith, he feels she would think she was being shamed by an anullment, as it would bring to light that they only married because of a baby. My seeking out the Catholic faith has rekindled something in him, however, so who knows what the future will bring. And I absolutely agree with those who say my own marriage situation needs to be visited, no matter what. I need that for my own peace of mind, I think.

 

[steelboss]

If their petition is turned down (and yes, I realize this is rare; however, it does happen), they cannot become Catholic, and it is not fair to them to have them go through RCIA, and then discover that they can’t become Catholic.

I am a recent convert, so I am still learning - but I about choked to death when I read this post. With acceptance like this, it is no wonder Luther ran for the hills!
Someone please explain to me that if Christ were to appear next to me right now, he would tell me that somone who has committeed a sin in his/her past (prior to discovering the truth) could not be forgiven and accepted into His kingdom.
I think it is slightly absurd that murderers and frauds can be absolved in a single sitting, but a divorcee must wade through red tape.
I think a little clarification into this dogma is due. A little background perhaps as to why this policy came to be?

 

[DebChris]

I am a recent convert, so I am still learning - but I about choked to death when I read this post. With acceptance like this, it is no wonder Luther ran for the hills!
Someone please explain to me that if Christ were to appear next to me right now, he would tell me that somone who has committeed a sin in his/her past (prior to discovering the truth) could not be forgiven and accepted into His kingdom.
I think it is slightly absurd that murderers and frauds can be absolved in a single sitting, but a divorcee must wade through red tape.
I think a little clarification into this dogma is due. A little background perhaps as to why this policy came to be?

See Matthew 5:52
“But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Whatever the person’s situation or past sin, the sin must be renounced. The question remains whether or not the person is continuing to live in sin (a decision the marriage tribunal makes).
If the first marriages are annulled, then the person is free to enter/remain in the relationship.
Marriage is sacred. Matrimony is a Sacrament and therefore indissolubable.

 

[jmcrae]

I am a recent convert, so I am still learning - but I about choked to death when I read this post. With acceptance like this, it is no wonder Luther ran for the hills!

I don’t think traditional Lutherans permit remarriage after divorce, either.

Someone please explain to me that if Christ were to appear next to me right now, he would tell me that somone who has committeed a sin in his/her past (prior to discovering the truth) could not be forgiven and accepted into His kingdom.

Christ said to the woman who was caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more.” He did not permit her to return to her male companion, nor wink at their behaviour.

I think it is slightly absurd that murderers and frauds can be absolved in a single sitting, but a divorcee must wade through red tape.

I think a little clarification into this dogma is due. A little background perhaps as to why this policy came to be?

The sin is not the divorce. In fact, the Church recognizes that there are situations when divorce is the appropriate action to take, especially when physical safety is involved.

The sin is to be living with someone (and presumably having sex) who cannot become your spouse, due to the fact that either you or your spouse is already married, though obviously not living with his or her actual spouse.

A Decree Nisai (that is, a civil divorce) cannot “end” a marriage - all it does is ends the financial and legal obligations of the spouses to each other.

They remain spouses to each other, though, until death they do part, just exactly as they proclaimed to God in their marriage vows. (What the Marriage Tribunal does is it determines whether this vow was taken inappropriately (ie: attempted to marry close kin), deceitfully (ie: just putting on a show of marriage in order to further some unrelated goal), or without full knowledge of its meaning (thought that “until death” was a poetic turn of phrase; didn’t realize that it was intended literally).)

No human court has the ability to dissolve an existing marriage. “What God hath joined, no man may rend asunder” are not just pretty words; they are a plain statement of fact. “No man” can make null a marriage that God has created - this includes any divorce court lawyer or judge, whether they be male or female. All that the Marriage Tribunal can do is see whether the marriage is null; they, also, do not have the ability to make it null.

 

[steelboss]

Thanks for the two replies.
I have been aware that modern society has grossly watered down the marriage rite, but I had not taken it to this extreme.
The reference to Christ and the prostitute is a little weak, as it was never clarified as to whether or not she was married, but I understand your point.
I guess this is just another of my former Protestant assumptions that I have to dispel. I am pretty sure the entire Protestant rank and file believe a civil divorce is sufficient. I had no idea the church does not recognize such civil proceedings as binding.

What of civil marriages? (Justice of the peace)
Does the church even recognize those as valid?

 

[DebChris]

A “civilly married Catholic” without an annullment from a previous marriage is living an adulterous life.
Some countries, such as France, require a civil marriage in order to be considered legal. The marriage is then convalidated by a separate ceremony within the Catholic Church.
Any marriage of Catholic persons before a Justice of the Peace must be convalidated or blessed to be considered Sacramental.

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks for the two replies.
I have been aware that modern society has grossly watered down the marriage rite, but I had not taken it to this extreme.
The reference to Christ and the prostitute is a little weak, as it was never clarified as to whether or not she was married, but I understand your point.

There is no mention that she was a prostitute. Perhaps the one she was with was her second “husband,” for all we know.

…]

What of civil marriages? (Justice of the peace)
Does the church even recognize those as valid?

It depends on who’s contracting them. Two baptized Protestants, this marriage is both valid and Sacramental.

Two unbaptized persons, the marriage is valid.

But if one of the parties to the civil marriage is a Catholic, then the validity of the marriage is in doubt, because of “lack of form”; they would have to receive a Marriage Blessing in Church, in order to assure that it is valid.

 

[GAHere]

As to your current husband’s reluctance to pursue an annulment, that is problematic, because unless and until the Church declares his first marriage an invalid one, you aren’t free to be married to him, and cannot receive the sacraments, even if your first marriage is found to have been invalid.

I’m pretty certain I’ve read from the family and liturgy forums that another option would be for the OP and her husband (the one not willing to pursue an annulment) to live as brother and sister until the matter gets resolved. It seems to me that if the OP would live her life according to church teachings she would be able to enter into RCIA to at least begin the process of her conversion.

If she’s willing to live in a separate bedroom until the husband comes around to pursuing that annulment then wouldn’t that be evidence that she assents to living the Christian life that RCIA requires? I should think she’d be able to receive the Eucharist provided she lived a celibate life during this transitional time in that particular marriage. Maybe the husband would take her desire to convert more seriously then and it may even nudge him to stop being so stubborn about it.

Of course, if the annulment isn’t granted then she faces the dilemma of choosing to resume her full marital obligations or continue the RCIA process. A sad possibility, but one that the Spirit will guide her through, I imagine.